If the la says overtime must be paid, contracts who say otherwise are null and void.
Contracts created after the law goes into effect, maybe; Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prevents states from impairing existing contracts.
Wow, I've been modded down plenty of times (and on a good percentage of those I deserved it), but that's easily the most inoffensive comment I've ever had modded down.
Everyone envisions doctors as Corvette-driving, boat-owning, million-dollar mansion homestead people. I assure you that in today's marketplace, NOBODY goes into medicine for the money - unless they're making drugs for a big-pharm company or doing boob jobs.
I do think doctors get a lousy deal at the start of their career, but after your residency your salary should steadily climb. While I don't think anyone enters the medical field for the money, you can at least comfort yourself that in 3-7 years you'll definitely be making a comfortable living, and you'll have great job security, something that can't be said for sure in other professional fields (MBA, JD, PhD).
If companies suddenly had to start paying overtime, salaries would have to be adjusted.
The ethical thing to do would be to adjust executive salaries down and let everyone else's stay the same. Not going to happen, but I hope everyone realizes that this is a result of institutionalized greed, not a case of not enough money going around.
Go back to the 1950's and the difference between the CEO and the janitor's salary was a hell of a lot smaller.
My hat goes off to you, sir, for Getting It (tm). Are you a lawyer/law student? I'm tired of people who rattle on and on about the law and deliberately spread misinformation (and moderate down correct information). Thank you for pointing out the ethical obligations of the legal profession.
Thanks, I'm a lawyer. I think what a lot of people here also might miss is that even if they pursued it to a victory in court, that might not really create anything of real precedential value. If the case is routine enough the court might issue an order without a written opinion. Alternately, the court could simply state there is no precedential value, or issue a written opinion that doesn't even address the issue of the validity of the GPL.
On the other hand, I think that it would be in the client's best interest - if that client is responsible for a lot of GPL software - to set a precedent. It takes a larger up-front effort, but further actions that dispositively rely on the GPL being unenforceable are a 12(b)(6) away from disappearing. Also, it's dangerous to suggest (even remotely) that the client shouldn't want to go to trial; even though it's always better for people to settle, it could be construed as using a lawsuit to extort payment, which of course would be sanctionable.
I mean, if the client orders you to follow a certain litigation strategy, you have to either do it or withdraw, ultimately you're their agent. I've had clients tell me to do something that I thought was a terrible idea, and I told them I thought it might be a mistake, but some of them just think they know best.
So it's entirely possible that at some point a GPL licensor will want to pursue it until they get a binding opinion, but honestly for the majority of individuals it's just not really worth it, unless you get the FSF to carry the whole cost of the action (which could very well happen).
It is too bad, in some ways, that it didn't go to court. Personally, I will sleep much more soundly when there is a precedent set which upholds the GPL as legally valid.
If thoughts about the GPL are keeping you up at night, I think you have a problem...
IANAL, but wouldn't it have been better if a judge actually ruled against them (Monsoon), setting a precedent to be used in future GPL violation cases?
Better for whom? The attorneys in the case represent their respective clients, not the public interest at large. If they see a way to get a good result for their clients, they are ethically obligated to pursue it, even if in the long run someone else down the road has a harder time of it.
In the UK there is the concept of a vexatious litigant, if the court decides you are one then you can no-longer initiate legal action of any kind. I assume that is the case in the US and was wondering if there were moves afoot to have Jack Thompson declared one?
There is such a concept. The only cases I've seen it happen, however, is where the litigant went to extremes, well beyond where even Thompson has gone.
The amount of money that Microsoft can bring in an effort to defend their position (and garner tons more publicity for Halo 3 and Xbox 360) is going to make life hard for Jack.
It's a pretty straightforward case; I don't think it matters how much you spend on this, it's all going to come down to a simple summary judgment at some point.
How the hell does a guy going through disbarment proceedings still get to go around filing nuisance suits?
He can still practice law up until he's actually disbarred. Anyway, he filed the case on behalf of himself, and even a disbarred lawyer can file lawsuits pro se.
Why has the Florida Bar not revoked his license to practice yet?
Most of the people disbarred in Florida are done so because they basically took money from their clients that they weren't supposed to; the Bar's focus is usually on lawyers who abuse the attorney-client relationship.
The real Ayn Rand would have been perfectly fine with anyone doing whatever they want with their own money - it's the concept of others deciding to do something with your money without your approval that she'd have some difficulty.
No, you're ascribing mainline libertarian thought to Ayn Rand; she really did think altruism was evil, even if you were only using your own money.
'Everyone expects technology to drop in price. The first adopters always pay a premium. I am one of them. I am used to that.
See? He's willing to face the financial hurt to enjoy the benefits of being an early adopter. I mean, $200 isn't really that much to me, but Woz has been out of a job for a long time, so that $200 really does hurt.
Hehe... you are correct. I went to law school because I heard there would be no math.:)
Ha...if I'd been better at math, more specifically calculating interest rates and monthly school loan payments, I probably wouldn't have gone to law school...
Both of you have made the assumption that all lawyers are working at a medium to large size firm (where you do get paid $115K per year starting salary).
I was saying $115k average across ALL attorneys, whatever the level of experience, and whatever the organization. Some firms pay starting salaries of $220k a year for someone just out of law school; some people are making less than $100k after a 30 year career.
Regardless, the average salary for a 1st year associate in my small-town of York is probably $45K.
That demonstrates exactly the point I was trying to make.
Average salary means half are below and half are above.
Nah, average means adding them all up and dividing by the number. You're thinking of median.
The reason why we lawyers get "rich" (I wish!) is because people make the assumption that they know what the laws is and what the consequences are.
It is astounding how many people think lawyers are just generally wealthy. The median salary of a lawyer in my state is about $115,000 if I remember correctly. Considering it requires 3 full-time years of graduate school and ridiculous work hours, I don't really see how that's too exorbitant. In fact, it's pretty much consistent with other professional fields requiring the same level of education, and it's a lot less than some (MD and investment banker for example).
I wasn't talking about this incident, but about the way security forces work in the US.
So your reply had nothing to do with what I said. Then why did you post it in response to my posting?
I said that in this specific situation, the police officers' actions were justified. You're interpreting this to mean I support other actions that weren't justified. Doesn't make much sense.
But hey, that's the way americans think! "Shoot first, ask questions later."
Guess you come from a country with a low literacy rate. I guess I was just being a silly American when I actually read the damn article which states they DID ask questions first, which she ignored.
Maybe to your well-trained eyes it looks like a bomb. But shouldn't people with experience dealing with bombs and bomb making know that silly putty, a 9V battery and a circuit board with shiny lights do not a bomb make?
Alright, you have definitely been watching waaaaay too many movies. Homemade bombs aren't standardized ("cut the blue wire! the bad guys always use the blue wire to set it off!"). There isn't an ANSI standard for homemade bombs.
You need the explosive substance, and a detonator. That's pretty much it, and they can take a wide assortment of shapes and sizes.
But shouldn't people with experience dealing with bombs and bomb making know that silly putty, a 9V battery and a circuit board with shiny lights do not a bomb make?
And they're supposed to know that it's silly putty and not plastique?
I'm looking forward to the convoluted arguments as to how the security personnel overreacted, and how she did nothing wrong. The damn thing definitely looks like it could have been a bomb. She really is lucky they didn't shoot her.
Thief 3 was good, but Thief 2 was better. If they make another game in the series I hope they drop some of the overly simplistic console elements and return to the older interface.
Because otherwise its advantagous for a lawyer just to blindly sue whenever they feel like it, and they get paid win or lose.
Unless the person doesn't have the money, in which case the lawyer can't really do much. If you're a single mom on welfare and you have a $10,000 judgment against you, there's not much you have to do. They can garnish your paycheck, but they're limited on how much they can garnish it for, so if you're pulling in $12,000 a year they're not really going to get anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I've been modded down plenty of times (and on a good percentage of those I deserved it), but that's easily the most inoffensive comment I've ever had modded down.
Everyone envisions doctors as Corvette-driving, boat-owning, million-dollar mansion homestead people. I assure you that in today's marketplace, NOBODY goes into medicine for the money - unless they're making drugs for a big-pharm company or doing boob jobs.
I do think doctors get a lousy deal at the start of their career, but after your residency your salary should steadily climb. While I don't think anyone enters the medical field for the money, you can at least comfort yourself that in 3-7 years you'll definitely be making a comfortable living, and you'll have great job security, something that can't be said for sure in other professional fields (MBA, JD, PhD).
If the la says overtime must be paid, contracts who say otherwise are null and void.
Contracts created after the law goes into effect, maybe; Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prevents states from impairing existing contracts.
If companies suddenly had to start paying overtime, salaries would have to be adjusted.
The ethical thing to do would be to adjust executive salaries down and let everyone else's stay the same. Not going to happen, but I hope everyone realizes that this is a result of institutionalized greed, not a case of not enough money going around.
Go back to the 1950's and the difference between the CEO and the janitor's salary was a hell of a lot smaller.
My hat goes off to you, sir, for Getting It (tm). Are you a lawyer/law student? I'm tired of people who rattle on and on about the law and deliberately spread misinformation (and moderate down correct information). Thank you for pointing out the ethical obligations of the legal profession.
Thanks, I'm a lawyer. I think what a lot of people here also might miss is that even if they pursued it to a victory in court, that might not really create anything of real precedential value. If the case is routine enough the court might issue an order without a written opinion. Alternately, the court could simply state there is no precedential value, or issue a written opinion that doesn't even address the issue of the validity of the GPL.
On the other hand, I think that it would be in the client's best interest - if that client is responsible for a lot of GPL software - to set a precedent. It takes a larger up-front effort, but further actions that dispositively rely on the GPL being unenforceable are a 12(b)(6) away from disappearing. Also, it's dangerous to suggest (even remotely) that the client shouldn't want to go to trial; even though it's always better for people to settle, it could be construed as using a lawsuit to extort payment, which of course would be sanctionable.
I mean, if the client orders you to follow a certain litigation strategy, you have to either do it or withdraw, ultimately you're their agent. I've had clients tell me to do something that I thought was a terrible idea, and I told them I thought it might be a mistake, but some of them just think they know best.
So it's entirely possible that at some point a GPL licensor will want to pursue it until they get a binding opinion, but honestly for the majority of individuals it's just not really worth it, unless you get the FSF to carry the whole cost of the action (which could very well happen).
It is too bad, in some ways, that it didn't go to court. Personally, I will sleep much more soundly when there is a precedent set which upholds the GPL as legally valid.
If thoughts about the GPL are keeping you up at night, I think you have a problem...
IANAL, but wouldn't it have been better if a judge actually ruled against them (Monsoon), setting a precedent to be used in future GPL violation cases?
Better for whom? The attorneys in the case represent their respective clients, not the public interest at large. If they see a way to get a good result for their clients, they are ethically obligated to pursue it, even if in the long run someone else down the road has a harder time of it.
Unlikely. A real lawyer would have better things to do with his time.
Ha, you'd think, huh? But yet I still find time to post on slashdot every day.
In the UK there is the concept of a vexatious litigant, if the court decides you are one then you can no-longer initiate legal action of any kind. I assume that is the case in the US and was wondering if there were moves afoot to have Jack Thompson declared one?
There is such a concept. The only cases I've seen it happen, however, is where the litigant went to extremes, well beyond where even Thompson has gone.
The amount of money that Microsoft can bring in an effort to defend their position (and garner tons more publicity for Halo 3 and Xbox 360) is going to make life hard for Jack.
It's a pretty straightforward case; I don't think it matters how much you spend on this, it's all going to come down to a simple summary judgment at some point.
How the hell does a guy going through disbarment proceedings still get to go around filing nuisance suits?
He can still practice law up until he's actually disbarred. Anyway, he filed the case on behalf of himself, and even a disbarred lawyer can file lawsuits pro se.
Why has the Florida Bar not revoked his license to practice yet?
Most of the people disbarred in Florida are done so because they basically took money from their clients that they weren't supposed to; the Bar's focus is usually on lawyers who abuse the attorney-client relationship.
The real Ayn Rand would have been perfectly fine with anyone doing whatever they want with their own money - it's the concept of others deciding to do something with your money without your approval that she'd have some difficulty.
No, you're ascribing mainline libertarian thought to Ayn Rand; she really did think altruism was evil, even if you were only using your own money.
'Everyone expects technology to drop in price. The first adopters always pay a premium. I am one of them. I am used to that.
See? He's willing to face the financial hurt to enjoy the benefits of being an early adopter. I mean, $200 isn't really that much to me, but Woz has been out of a job for a long time, so that $200 really does hurt.
This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year.
Uhhh..and now this marketing plan will somehow prevent those titles from coming out? I don't get it.
Hehe... you are correct. I went to law school because I heard there would be no math. :)
Ha...if I'd been better at math, more specifically calculating interest rates and monthly school loan payments, I probably wouldn't have gone to law school...
Both of you have made the assumption that all lawyers are working at a medium to large size firm (where you do get paid $115K per year starting salary).
I was saying $115k average across ALL attorneys, whatever the level of experience, and whatever the organization. Some firms pay starting salaries of $220k a year for someone just out of law school; some people are making less than $100k after a 30 year career.
Regardless, the average salary for a 1st year associate in my small-town of York is probably $45K.
That demonstrates exactly the point I was trying to make.
Average salary means half are below and half are above.
Nah, average means adding them all up and dividing by the number. You're thinking of median.
The reason why we lawyers get "rich" (I wish!) is because people make the assumption that they know what the laws is and what the consequences are.
It is astounding how many people think lawyers are just generally wealthy. The median salary of a lawyer in my state is about $115,000 if I remember correctly. Considering it requires 3 full-time years of graduate school and ridiculous work hours, I don't really see how that's too exorbitant. In fact, it's pretty much consistent with other professional fields requiring the same level of education, and it's a lot less than some (MD and investment banker for example).
I wasn't talking about this incident, but about the way security forces work in the US.
So your reply had nothing to do with what I said. Then why did you post it in response to my posting?
I said that in this specific situation, the police officers' actions were justified. You're interpreting this to mean I support other actions that weren't justified. Doesn't make much sense.
The freedom to wear lit breadboards in airport lobbies?
Ahh, the seldom-cited 35th Amendment.
But hey, that's the way americans think! "Shoot first, ask questions later."
Guess you come from a country with a low literacy rate. I guess I was just being a silly American when I actually read the damn article which states they DID ask questions first, which she ignored.
Maybe to your well-trained eyes it looks like a bomb. But shouldn't people with experience dealing with bombs and bomb making know that silly putty, a 9V battery and a circuit board with shiny lights do not a bomb make?
Alright, you have definitely been watching waaaaay too many movies. Homemade bombs aren't standardized ("cut the blue wire! the bad guys always use the blue wire to set it off!"). There isn't an ANSI standard for homemade bombs.
You need the explosive substance, and a detonator. That's pretty much it, and they can take a wide assortment of shapes and sizes.
But shouldn't people with experience dealing with bombs and bomb making know that silly putty, a 9V battery and a circuit board with shiny lights do not a bomb make?
And they're supposed to know that it's silly putty and not plastique?
I'm looking forward to the convoluted arguments as to how the security personnel overreacted, and how she did nothing wrong. The damn thing definitely looks like it could have been a bomb. She really is lucky they didn't shoot her.
Thief 3 was good, but Thief 2 was better. If they make another game in the series I hope they drop some of the overly simplistic console elements and return to the older interface.
Because otherwise its advantagous for a lawyer just to blindly sue whenever they feel like it, and they get paid win or lose.
Unless the person doesn't have the money, in which case the lawyer can't really do much. If you're a single mom on welfare and you have a $10,000 judgment against you, there's not much you have to do. They can garnish your paycheck, but they're limited on how much they can garnish it for, so if you're pulling in $12,000 a year they're not really going to get anything.